Marjorie Titchen is 91 years old. She lives in Bournemouth where she continues to run a small hotel. She says that she will retire when she is 100! This will mean that she will have worked and paid taxes for over 80 years“ and yet incredibly she is being refused medical treatment by her local PC. Marjorie suffers from osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, which she has controlled now for over 10 years with homeopathy. She has never taken a conventional drug, and refuses to do so. In April 2008, she applied for another course of homeopathy with her local homeopath, who has treated her, successfully, for many years. Mrs Titchen says:

“I had expected to be in a wheelchair by now because of my osteoarthritis. I can do two or three hours work a day. I wouldn’t be as mobile and as clear-minded if it hadn’t been for the treatment my homeopath has been giving me for the last decade.”

The Bournemouth and Poole Teaching Primary Care Trust refused to fund the treatment, even though they had done so on many previous occasions. A spokesman for the PCT told the local newspaper (the Bournemouth Echo) in August last year

“The clinical evidence did not show that homeopathy treatment would continue to be an effective treatment for Mrs Titchen and we will not be continuing to support that treatment. This is not about a basic funding decision. We would expect Mrs Titchen’s GP to reassess her condition and if necessary refer her to a hospital consultant, should that be appropriate.”

The PCT has claimed that there is no evidence that homeopathy works with osteoarthritis. This is not correct. There is ample evidence that homeopathy helps in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Mrs Titchen confirms that homeopathy has helped her, surely the most important evidence of all. But there is more. For instance, Shealy C.N., Thomlinson P.R., Cox R.H., and Bormeyer V. Osteoarthritis Pain: A Comparison of Homoeopathy and Acetaminophen. American Journal of Pain Management, 8, 3, July 1998, 89-91, conducted an experiment with 65 sufferers of Osteoarthritis who were split into 2 groups, and through a double blinding process were given either a homoeopathic medicine or Acetaminophen, a commonly prescribed drug for pain relief. Researchers found that homoeopathy provided a level of pain relief that was superior to Acetaminophen, and, perhaps equally important, produced no adverse reactions.

So what is happening here? Mrs Titchen wants homeopathy. Mrs Titchen’s GP supports her request for homeopathic treatment. Her homeopath has treated her before, successfully, and is willing to do so again. She has benefited from homeopathy in the past, and even her MP is supporting her request. Yet the PCT has still seen fit to make a purely bureaucratic decision that denies her the treatment of her choice.  It appears that the PCT believe they know what is best for Mrs Titchen, and they are prepared to ignore her request for treatment. The result is that Mrs Titchen has now gone without treatment for nearly a year. This is contrary to the way the government wants health services to develop. Patricia Hewitt, Health Secretary at the time the White Paper, Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: a new direction for community services (January 2006) was published, stated this (more) people (are) wanting a different approach to services, looking for real choices, more local care, taking greater control over their health, supported to remain independent wherever possible

Karin Mont, chair of the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH), says that the government White Paper identified 5 key areas where change was required – all of which, she says, homeopathy is well-placed to deliver for the NHS. These are:1) A greater emphasis on personalised care.2) Bringing care closer to our home.3) Gaining greater cooperation between local councils and the NHS.4) More patient choice.5) Initiatives to prevent the development of disease. Despite this, the ARH knows that Mrs Titchen’s dilemma is not an unusual one.

The number of people wanting to use homeopathy, in preference to conventional medication, has been growing for many decades – mostly by patients paying privately for treatment. Many more people, who cannot afford to do this, are routinely denied access to homeopathy by PCT’s throughout the country.

Steve Scrutton, ARH Registrar, says: “The NHS was established in 1948 to provide medical treatment for sick people regardless of their ability to pay. Now, only those who can afford to pay for homeopathy can access it. Those who cannot afford to do so, and remember they have already paid for NHS treatment, in Mrs Titchen’s case for nearly 80 years, can have treatment – but only if it is the treatment favoured by the NHS bureaucracy”

The ARH believes that an ever-growing number of people, who do not want conventional medicine as they consider it ineffective or unsafe, are effectively being denied treatment. This is not the purpose or intention of the NHS, nor is there anything in NHS legislation, policy or procedures that supports this denial of homeopath. The ARH notes that all the main political parties are now proposing to develop a ‘choice’ agenda within the NHS. Yet the choice on offer does not seem to go beyond the conventional medical monopoly. This means that whilst patients can decide where, and with whom they receive conventional treatment, as yet, no political party has had the courage to open up the NHS to homeopathy, and other traditional therapies.

What this means, for people like Mrs Titchen, is that the NHS is denying real health choices to anyone who would prefer to use homeopathy, or another medical therapy, to treat their illnesses.

Steve Scrutton.

Registrar and Media Officer.

Alliance of Registered Homeopaths.

15 Manitoba Close, Corby, Northamptonshire. NN18 9HX
Tel: 01536 744520
Email:steve@a-r-h.org

Â